Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I have not banned the hon. Member from acting on behalf of her constituents, and, if I may say so, I do not expect to see that wording repeated outside this Chamber, because it is not what I have said. I have been realistic with colleagues in explaining that I cannot respond to their requests in the usual caseworking manner because of the situation in Afghanistan. As for community groups, this is part of our work that we are considering for the ACRS. I am very conscious of the enormous role that they have played in the past through, for example, the Syrian resettlement scheme, and I want very much to build on those successes as part of this scheme.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Government had 18 months in which to plan to evacuate Afghanistan, and have had a further two months since it fell, but the Minister for warm welcome still cannot say today when the resettlement scheme will even start, which does not suggest a sufficient sense of urgency. Can the hon. Lady tell me when the meeting with her that she offered on 8 September will finally happen? My team have been chasing it for seven weeks. Will she also agree to meet my local authority, and agency representatives, who have been supporting the hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers placed in Southwark—though no warning was given to Southwark Council—since the start of September?

[Victoria Atkins]

As I would say to any other Member of this House, if a request for a meeting has not been acted on, please speak to me at any time, because I will ensure that it happens. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have to say that I do not recall having that conversation with him; however, I will certainly act on what he says now.

As for the timeframe, the Ministry of Defence has been evacuating ARAP translators since, I think, 2014. It is right that we put even more energy into that effort from April this year, but as I have said, Operation Pitting was the largest evacuation in living memory. We are proud of the efforts of the military and everyone else involved in it, and we now want to ensure that the work that they did in Kabul is met with a warm welcome here in the United Kingdom.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I add my gratitude to you, the Speaker’s team and everyone in this place who is ensuring that we can continue to scrutinise the Government in these unique and challenging times?

I thank the Government for bringing this legislation back at this difficult time. It is good to see such broad cross-party agreement on this issue. I congratulate the new shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and his Front-Bench team on their leadership, their constructive engagement and their early involvement on this issue.

On a personal note, may I say how wonderful it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on the Front Bench? Her formal role on the Bill and her participation from the Labour Front Bench are long overdue. Her all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse worked with the APPG on ending homelessness, which I co-chair, on the “A Safe Home” campaign, which is backed by Crisis, Women’s Aid, SafeLives and many more organisations and individuals. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) indicated, the campaign also has cross-party support.

Sadly, there is a huge overlap between domestic abuse and homelessness. Last year, almost 24,000 families who were homeless or on the brink of homelessness had experienced or were at risk of domestic abuse. “A Safe Home” seeks to ensure that the Bill enables everyone who is homeless because they are fleeing domestic abuse to have access to a safe permanent home.

That was necessary before the virus struck; the most recent Office for National Statistics figures show that the number of women murdered in the UK increased to 214 in the 12 months to March 2019, including a rising number killed at the hands of their partner or former partner. It is even more crucial now we know that the lockdown has brought with it a rise in attacks. Refuge’s national domestic abuse helpline has seen a 49% increase in daily calls and a quadrupling of web traffic.

Sadly, for some, the threat is fatal. The Counting Dead Women project estimates that 14 women were killed during the first three weeks of the lockdown. “Stay home, stay safe” is not true for everyone. I hope Ministers will ensure that safe long-term accommodation is guaranteed, to give women a better chance of escape without fear of ending up homeless.

Currently, anyone fleeing domestic abuse must prove that they are significantly more vulnerable than anyone else to be guaranteed help from councils for a permanent home. Some local authorities use that as a gatekeeping tool. Awful examples include women being told to go and get a letter from their abuser to prove they have been abused. Research last year for the APPG on ending homelessness revealed that almost 2,000 people were unable to meet the vulnerability threshold in England alone. Those are women who were not provided with a safe home after initial help in refuges—women left facing homelessness or a return to an abusive relationship. The Bill must end that fatalistic situation.

Helping those 2,000 people would not be a huge commitment for the Government. My council, the London Borough of Southwark, is already adopting that measure. Although I hope the Government follow where Southwark leads, this issue should not be dependent on leadership in any one postcode, borough, town or city. Ministers have the chance to address this issue nationally through the Bill, and they must rise to the challenge.

When Ministers announced the statutory duty on local authorities to provide temporary accommodation-based support last year, it was welcomed across the House and the country. An extension to an automatic guarantee of safe long-term housing would be similarly welcomed and is just as essential. I also hope Ministers recognise that the Bill needs to extend the statutory duty on local authorities so that it covers not just accommodation but all the specialist support necessary to rebuild lives.

Nearly 70% of survivors access other services that are provided in the community, including independent domestic violence and abuse advisers, counselling, and young people’s and children’s workers. Children who have experienced domestic abuse should be able to access counselling and support, but that is not currently covered by the Government duty and is poorly delivered at local level. A full statutory duty and resources are required to commission the full range of specialist domestic abuse services that are needed, and the Bill is the right vehicle to provide that.

The current crisis has made the issue far more acute, but there was already insufficient funding in the system. Two thirds of the people referred to refuges in 2018-19 were turned away. With more people at risk during this lockdown and after it ends, the Government must act now to provide sufficient sustained funding in the longer term. I hope to join the Bill Committee to raise those and other issues in more detail for all the organisations working on the frontline. Those issues include splitting universal credit payments to prevent economic abuse; ending no recourse to public funds restrictions on essential support for women and children currently denied help—shamefully—in this country; introducing a gendered definition, given the higher prevalence of women experiencing abuse; fully ending cross-examination in courts; criminalising the use of threats to share naked or sexual images in order to abuse or control someone; and the proper enforcement and monitoring of non-molestation protection orders, which is far too patchy currently, and which I hope Ministers will act on, given the heightened risk now, more than ever, in lockdown Britain. I hope to see progress on all those issues as the Bill makes progress and look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We can now return to Christian Wakeford, but via audio only.

Knife Crime

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

I absolutely agree. In fact, part of the Petitions Committee system is outreach work, and on Friday last we went to a school in Hartlepool, where the young people repeated much of that argument.

Many will agree that that £100 million is too little, too late and compare it with the £2.7 billion that has been taken out of the policing system since 2010, but any money targeted at tackling and preventing knife crime is welcome. For the record, my police force, Cleveland police, has had its number of police officers reduced by 500-a 37% reduction in staffing, following cuts of £25.5 million since 2010. The Prime Minister may be of the opinion that there is no correlation between police cuts and knife crime, but senior figures in the policing community, such as Cressida Dick, disagree. Considering that officer ranks have depleted by 20,000 across England, small wonder that people make that link.

The net effect of policing cuts was writ large when my constituency became the focus of a BBC film, which was broadcast on the national news, exposing that, in a town with a population of 92,028 at the last census, only 10 police officers were on duty on a Saturday night. Such a lack of visible police on the streets has resulted in our communities feeling less safe and more under threat. There is a real perception that crime will rise unless the police are better resourced. Cleveland police saw an increase in cautions and convictions for knife crime last year, and there has been a 4% rise since 2015. The police and crime commissioner, Barry Coppinger, is doing excellent work on crime prevention and intervention, but without the necessary resources he is swimming against the tide.

There truly is an argument not only for resourcing the police better but for increasing the tariff on custodial sentences. Clearly, in the mind of the public, current tariffs are not sufficient to act as a deterrent to criminals. The petition reflects that. The fact that the maximum penalty of four years applies only to reoffenders and not to first offenders is deeply worrying.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate so well. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Families in my constituency who have suffered the tragedy of losing a loved one to knife crime say witnesses have not come forward as a direct result of their lack of confidence that those who committed the crime will receive lengthy convictions. Does my hon. Friend agree that the aims behind the petition would help address that concern by delivering longer sentences, encouraging witnesses to come forward and increasing the chances of securing prosecutions overall?

[Mike Hill]

I absolutely agree. If anything, the petition opens up a debate about that whole subject, including prevention.

The petitioners’ call for mandatory tariffs of 10 years for possession and 25 years for the use of a knife may be seen as excessive, but there can be no doubt that, in the mind of the general public, the courts need to play their part in preventing the proliferation of knife-related criminal activity and, frankly, the murders that occur on our streets day in, day out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman’s support for Operation Venice, which has had incredible results in my constituency as well, and I totally support his call for greater action on this issue across the board. The Prime Minister suggested last week that Brexit was blocking Parliament from taking action on NHS, education and knife crime issues. Does he agree that that premise is unacceptable? It is not an either/or for any Government; knife crime must be acted on. Having met with the Prime Minister, as he has already outlined, when does he expect further action?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I cannot speak for the Prime Minister, although I am sure the Minister will be able to speak for the Government later, but whatever is going on with Brexit cannot be an excuse for doing nothing on knife crime. It does not necessarily require legislation; it requires strategies, more resources and communities working together, so a lot can be done without necessarily having to pass new laws. However, in this instance, we are talking about increasing the penalties for carrying and using a knife, and I am totally in favour of that.

I can tell hon. Members that there is not a single constituent in my area—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster will have had the same experience—who feels the current penalties are sufficient. They want to see much tougher action, much stricter penalties and a real deterrent, so that people fear being caught, apprehended and imprisoned for a long time if they carry and use a knife.

Returning to my comments, stopping low-level disorder and petty crime helps to curtail the invitation to more serious crime, which is why I hope that knife crime prevention orders will help. Yet we must not turn away from difficult questions. My constituents are particularly fortunate that Havering starts from a base of historically low crime, and they want to keep it that way. As legislators, we cannot throw money at a problem and expect that that will solve everything, that no questions need be asked and no reforms are required. That is simply not the answer; more needs to be done.

We must smash the myth on some estates that carrying a knife is a normal thing to do, and we should take a long hard look at compulsory custodial sentences for knife crimes. I hope the Minister will address that later. Law-abiding citizens, fearful for their children when they walk home from school or simply relax in a park with their friends, are sick of seeing soft sentencing for knife offenders.

I therefore call on the Government urgently to consider a minimum custodial sentence for a knife or offensive weapon offence. What do we say to the parent of a victim who is in despair at the cautions handed down to the perpetrators of these horrifying crimes? How have we arrived at the stage where a man who tries to smash a car window and attack an individual with a huge zombie knife in broad daylight is given a suspended sentence? The Minister needs to ask himself how that kind of sentence can be justified. The decision was only overturned after public outrage, when appeal judges replaced that notoriously lenient sentence with jail time.

Legislators and the courts are at real risk of becoming detached from public opinion on what is fast becoming a national crisis. We in this place have a duty to ensure that an effective deterrent exists to combat this evil culture, and to do everything in our power to prevent more young people from being slaughtered in our communities. We must now take action and, in so doing, honour the memory of Jodie Chesney.

Future of Legal Aid

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Bailey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing this important debate today, particularly during Justice Week.

A recent survey commissioned by the Law Society, Bar Council and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives showed that 78% of people agree that justice is as important as health or education, yet only 20% of the 2,000 respondents thought there was sufficient funding for those who need legal advice. Since the implementation of LASPO under the coalition Government, the reduction in legal aid has caused a crisis of access to justice. Our justice system is fast becoming a two-tier system where the dividing line is determined by who can, and more often cannot, afford legal advice. Access to justice and the rule of law, which underpin so many things within society, are slowly ebbing away for many across the country.

LASPO removed many areas of law from the remit of civil legal aid, including in the sphere of housing, welfare, debt, employment, immigration, family law and clinical negligence. The Bar Council was absolutely damning in its recent assessment of LASPO: in a survey of members, 91% of respondents reported that the number of individuals struggling to get access to legal advice and representation had increased or risen significantly; the same number of respondents also reported a significant increase in the number of litigants in person in family cases. Most worryingly, however, 25% of respondents had stopped doing civil legal aid work, and 48% of barristers surveyed did less legal aid work than before. We know about legal aid deserts popping up across the country. Almost one third of the legal aid areas in England and Wales have one local legal aid housing advice provider, or none. LASPO has shunned those who most need help.

The ideologically driven cuts to budgets have had a profound impact on legal aid, but analysis has shown that the cuts to early advice in particular, as well as being a sign of poor decision making, cost the state more. When there is early advice, problems are resolved much more quickly, with 25% of cases resolved within three to four months, compared with nine months when there is no early advice.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

One area in which LASPO has perversely driven up costs is immigration. LASPO exempted certain immigration cases. Home Office error affects about 50,000 British-born children of parents who are legally in the UK and who have no recourse to public funds. A third are likely to have their decisions overturned. They are wholly reliant on council funding and children’s services. The cost vastly exceeds the cost of providing housing benefit or child benefit. It can take years to overturn decisions, as I have seen in my casework and surgeries.

[Ellie Reeves]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is not a million miles from mine and I completely relate to the points he raised about the cases people bring to surgery. I have lost count of the number of food vouchers that I have given to families in exactly the situation he describes—trapped in the immigration system without being able to get access to any kind of legal aid to resolve their problems.

For many years before entering this place I was an employment rights lawyer representing trade union members, and I regularly had to advise clients on their prospects of success in employment tribunal cases. In my experience, if I advised someone at the outset that their case had very little merit, they would rarely pursue it further; as a result, the tribunal did not get clogged up with unmeritorious claims, and judges did not need to spend time dealing with litigants in person. Conversely, if a claim did have prospects, often the early involvement of a lawyer providing objective advice meant that the claim would be resolved far earlier in the process, and often there was no need to resort to costly litigation. That brings home the fact that cutting early legal advice costs the justice system more, because of the number of cases that go forward and the time taken to deal with litigants in person in court.

By restoring early legal advice in the spheres of housing, immigration and welfare, not only would expensive legal proceedings often be avoided, but there would be less strain elsewhere in the system, on such things as housing and welfare costs. For example, it falls to the local authority to house someone who was evicted because of welfare benefit issues, and that often costs a great deal more than legal advice would have. The cost to the NHS when someone lives in a house in total disrepair is likely to be far greater than the cost of early legal advice to resolve the housing issue. As others have said, the extent to which the legal aid budget was cut is a false economy.

It is not only civil law that has suffered under this Government. The criminal justice system has been hit by cuts too, as others have mentioned. Earlier this year, barristers across the country went on strike. They are not a group known for taking industrial action, but they did so following the introduction of a new fees system, which meant that many barristers had to work unpaid while analysing evidence and preparing for trial. As I said, 78% of people agree that justice is as important as health. In the recent book “The Secret Barrister”—I recommend it to anyone who has not already read it—the author sums up the current state of the system:

“In every crumbling, decaying magistrates’ Court and leaking Crown Court, we see every day the law’s equivalent of untreated, neglected patients on hospital trolleys. And every day it is met with a wall of silence.”

The issues affecting the criminal justice system are not down to legal aid alone, but properly financing legal aid would be a good place to start to resolve them. If people are to come into direct contact with the justice system, both they and the public must have confidence that it will deliver justice. Access to justice and the rule of law underpin our society. Yet successive Tory Governments have cut the Ministry of Justice budget by 40%. The idea of access to justice for the many has been eviscerated in just eight years. The Tories have positioned themselves as the party of law, order and justice, but the millions-worth of cuts forced on the Ministry of Justice since 2010 underline how out of touch the Government have become on justice matters.

Legal aid should provide the public with a means to pursue justice regardless of their wealth, yet many are now left to fend for themselves, often facing huge inequality of arms and feeling deep mistrust as to whether the system will be able to deliver for them. Contrary to what the Prime Minister continues to tell us, austerity is by no means over for those seeking justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

In my statement to the House on Friday, I set out that I would not be pursuing a judicial review on behalf of the Government in this case, but I also made it very clear that I did not want to say or do anything that would in any way stand in the way of others who may have different routes into a judicial review. I maintain that position.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

10. Whether the Government plan to introduce new legislative proposals on enshrining rights for victims.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)]

The Government want victims to get the support they need to cope with, and as far as possible recover from, the effects of crime. We are spending £96 million in 2017-18 to fund critical support services for victims of crime. That includes £7.2 million for nationally commissioned rape support services.

[Neil Coyle]

John Worboys lived in Rotherhithe in my constituency and is not welcome back. He has not served the sentence he was given and was not prosecuted for the vast majority of his crimes. How are the Government working with victims, police authorities and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that sex attackers are prosecuted for their crimes, and how is the Ministry of Justice better ensuring that victims’ rights are upheld in future parole decisions?

[Dr Lee]

The case of Worboys has troubled us all; it has troubled me personally—of course it has. In this particular case, Dame Glenys Stacey is investigating the review from a probation point of view. As the Secretary of State has already said, there are operational responsibilities with regard to where he is transferred to and the directions when he is released and where he can go. The Department is engaged with that on a daily basis.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field]

No, my hon. Friend has had one intervention via a point of order, and I think that is it for him.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I doubt it.

[Frank Field]

So do I.

I think new clause 49 should be the start of a new negotiating position. Mr Barnier has told us that we have to put our money on the table and get serious within two weeks, and I think we should jump at this opportunity. In two weeks’ time, the Government should lay the outline of our agreement. I believe they should say over which decades they are prepared to meet our commitments, and at the end of the two weeks, we should say that at that point we will cease to pay any contributions to the European Union. I want the balance of power to move swiftly from their boot to our boot. From that date, two weeks hence, at the invitation of Mr Barnier, we should say, “Fine. Here’s the outline of the agreement. Here’s the beginning of the money settlement”—paid over a period of time, because there are pensions contributions and so on—“but from this day, until you start seriously negotiating with us”, which they have not, “there will in fact be no more money.”

It is wrong to think that all the £17 billion a year will be coming back to us. The £5 billion that Mrs Thatcher negotiated from the unfair formula is already coming back to us. That was watered down—by whom I will not say, but there is only so much one can say from the Labour Benches—but, nevertheless, £5 billion is coming back. There is also £4 billion coming back to promote anti-poverty programmes in this country. I wish to tell the Committee that I applied for money from those funds to feed people who are hungry and may be starving, but what did Mr Barnier and his group do? Nothing. We supposedly have huge sums of money coming back—spent at their direction—but that does not actually feed people who are hungry.

I want to end by saying that I shall push the new clause to a Division for a number of reasons. One is that it always seems to me better to gain an advantage when one can, rather than later: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The Government are introducing their own timetable, as set by the European bureaucrats— whoever they are—instructing us when we might take leave of them, but I think we should decide today to leave on our terms and at a time of our choosing.

As I have said, the new clause should not be read in isolation, because it and the other three new clauses provide us with an alternative way of exiting without all the claptrap the Government have put in the Bill. I believe that, before the end of the negotiations, something like such a four-clause Bill will be adopted.

On the first and civilised intervention—the point of order—about timing, it is perhaps a fallacy to think of terms for oneself applying to terms for the nation, but I have never bought a house without having in the contract the date when it will be mine and on which I can actually move in. When I was elected to the House of Commons I knew that I would have a contract of up to five years, and I have never had a job without being given a starting date.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the Secretary of State said a moment ago—I think she was about to say this again—I am afraid that we are not in a position to say what will be in the manifesto. However, I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and we will obviously take full account of them.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

T9. I am helping families across Southwark who have been denied access to justice as a direct result of the coalition’s legal aid cuts. Three years ago, the Children’s Commissioner said that those cuts were undermining human rights. Was the former Liberal Democrat Justice Minister speaking for the Government when he promised a review and did he break that promise in not delivering it, or was his promise a cynical ploy to deflect attention from the damage his cuts were having on my community and the rest of the country?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I know Simon Hughes well, having been his opponent in the 1987 general election. I think that I am still the president of Bermondsey Conservatives.

Court Closures

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham]

I am talking about public money. This whole debate is about public money. That is why I said we should keep Buxton open.

I am concerned that the Minister has been let down by his officials, because the consultation was flawed, or wrong, and the officials showed an arrogance and unwillingness to accept the mistakes they had made in the consultation. Now that we see that the response document is highly selective, I fear they are letting him down again. I doubt their motivation. The Courts Service has been given a decision it does not want, and now, from where I am sitting—I might be cynical, bordering on paranoid—it seems to be very tardy in implementing his decision. So long as the delay continues, given that the courts are due to close imminently, the work will have to go to Chesterfield, which is what the service wanted. That was their original intention, and the longer the delay continues, the harder it will be to implement his decision to send the work to Stockport. That is what I am concerned about.

Thanks to the Minister’s determination, contrary to what has been said by the Opposition, and thanks to his willingness to listen to hon. Members, including to me on this occasion, the decision to move work to Stockport was taken, and I applaud him for that. As I have said, we want it sent to Stockport; we do not want everything sent to Chesterfield. That is what we want, and that is what we should have, but from the outside looking in, it appears that the officials want it their own way.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being willing to assess alternative options—he has talked to my council in Southwark about such an alternative—but in criticising the officials, is the hon. Gentleman not questioning the Minister’s ability to oversee the Department?

[Andrew Bingham]

No, not at all, because the Minister has done that by making this decision. The officials wanted Buxton closed and everything shipped to Chesterfield. I wanted Buxton open. Having listened to all sides of the argument—in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in private meetings—he came up with a compromise, so I think he has been very robust. I will not criticise him. I might be wrong—I hope to be proved wrong—but I think the officials wanted it a certain way, but they did not get it, and by tardiness they seem to be trying another way of getting it.

I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for bringing this debate the Chamber. The decision has been made and we have had these debates before, so this debate might be after the fact, but it is still a good debate to have. This is the Thursday before the Easter recess, yet attendance is good, so it is obviously an issue.

I ask the Minister for some assurances. Will he look at this issue, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that any further administrative work necessary to implement his decision to move the work—the vast majority of work, not just the odd case to make me, the people or the council happy—is done quickly, for the peace of mind of my constituents, as well as the magistrates, who, we must remember, perform a valuable public service for little recompense? I know for a fact that, if the work moved to Chesterfield, we might lose magistrates from the bench. Will he also make it clear to the officials that by “sending work to Stockport”, I mean the majority of work, not just a little bit? Finally, will he pay attention to the work of the officials? I hate to be critical but they seem to have a different agenda from the one that he and people elected to other bodies wanted. If he could give me those assurances, I would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing it and opening the debate so skilfully and eloquently. We share a concern about Lambeth county court, which covers many of our constituents.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about how busy his court was in Bromley, and showed how busy he was by receiving a call here. Lambeth court, too, is busy. When I appeared at the court—as a witness, I hasten to add—to speak for leaseholders against Southwark council, that morning alone there were about 22 individual cases involving residents and the council. It is an incredibly busy court, which is why local legal professionals approached me and other Members about the Government’s assessment of how the court was being used. Their concerns related to both the time that that assessment took place and the consideration of preparation for cases.

When this topic was discussed in Westminster Hall, these issues were not answered fully. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm whether alternative facilities have the capacity to provide the necessary preparation time and space. It is deeply unfortunate that in a debate about justice, the Government have not provided sufficient evidence to justify their course of action.

One aspect that has not been discussed today concerns law students. London South Bank University approached me to ask whether the Government are even considering assessing the impact on law students, the additional costs they will incur and the additional travel they will have to undertake to attend cases. Can the Minister tell us whether such an assessment will be conducted?

The issue of travel has been raised many times. The Government figure showing that 97% of people affected can be at a different court within an hour has been significantly challenged by Resolution and by Members today. That figure is not for travel from home, and it would be much more useful if the Government could provide an assessment of average journey times from home to court. I hope the Minister will commit today to provide such an assessment.

The 97% figure is also undermined in communities such as mine. In the borough of Southwark, only 50% of households actually own a car. The policy of controlled parking zones also affects many residents. People are therefore either unable to own a car or have only limited access to one.

In looking at the issue on behalf of individual constituents, I looked at journey times for constituents in Rotherhithe. It would take some of them four hours to go from Rotherhithe to Putney if they needed to appear there, and that would include six different bus journeys. I hope we have a new Mayor in May who will freeze fares and introduce the one-hour ticket, but my constituents still face potentially higher costs. Those costs and the inconvenience involved in travelling will affect court attendance, and they could affect the number of cancelled cases and appeals. We have not seen a full assessment of those issues.

Nor have we seen a full assessment of the potential knock-on costs for the police, who are transporting witnesses further, or to the probation service and the Prison Service, which are transporting defendants further. I believe it was the Law Society that raised the case of jurors claiming higher costs for their car use and the cost of public transport. Assessments of those issues have not been made available to the level we would expect. We have also heard about the additional costs to councils’ housing and social services offices.

Instead of the Department providing the evidence base and undertaking assessments, huge assumptions have been made about the willingness of councils and police stations to make space available to provide the video link facilities that the Minister has mentioned previously. Where is the evidence base to show that those things will happen and that the equipment will be available and useable? My hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about rural access to broadband services, but the issue is equally relevant to Rotherhithe, where BT has not provided the capacity to meet local demand. It would be useful if the Government could indicate today that they will look at that issue.

Without the demonstrable capacity to deliver the justice we know is needed, it seems that the Ministry of Justice is rushing into these proposals and passing the buck to other parts of the public sector and to individuals—individuals who have experienced crime or misfortune, and who are now being served another layer of injustice.

I am certainly not opposed to the modernisation agenda, but without the full assessments and commitments I have outlined, it is a very risky agenda. It is vital that the Government provide those assessments before they push ahead with their agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend speaks with passion. He and I have corresponded much, and we have met on many occasions. In fact, it is fair to say that I dreaded entering the Tea Room when I knew he was there, because I knew he would come and speak to me about his court. I think he will agree that I have tried to give him the best information I can, but on the final conclusion he wants, we will have to agree to disagree.

The Government have listened carefully, which is why, in addition to the five court buildings we have retained, we have modified our initial plans for a further 22 sites. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be mindful of that, because the court work that was initially going to be transferred to a court at Wandsworth, 6 miles away from Lambeth, will now be transferred to one at Camberwell Green, just 2 miles away. That was a consequence of our meeting and engagement with the local community.

In eight of the 22 sites where changes have been made, we will not close the court until suitable local alternative provision is in place. Work is under way to determine the specific provision to be provided at each of those locations, and to evaluate a number of options for holding hearings away from traditional court buildings. I expect further testing to take place over the coming months.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister clarify whether what he has just said is accurate? He seems to indicate that all the cases that were to be heard in Putney instead of Lambeth county court will now be held in Camberwell, but that is not the impression delivered previously. How much of the £700 million budget being made available will go to police or council facilities to ensure that a video link is possible?

[Mr Vara]

This four-year reform programme is worth more than £700 million, and the intention is to ensure that we have one of the best justice systems in the world. I will not give the hon. Gentleman details now about the precise minutiae and breakdown of a four-year programme involving so much money.

[Neil Coyle]

You do not know it.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, but if he had a little experience of business, he would know that in a four-year programme with such a huge sum of money involved, the figures might not be as precise as he would like them to be at the initial stage.

An important aspect of testing and evaluation will be to ensure that any hearings held outside a traditional court offer appropriate levels of security for members of the public, the judiciary, and court staff. Travel time was mentioned by a number of people, and there must be a fundamental recognition that far fewer people will have to travel to courts in the first place. We intend to use modern technology, and video conferencing facilities are already available. The hon. Member for Neath asked whether those have been tested in any way, but we already have such facilities—for example, there is a community centre in Wales that is used to give evidence.

We already have alternative places to use as courts, and employment tribunal cases have been conducted on oil rigs in the North sea. Only yesterday, a lawyer colleague of ours who joined the House after the election last year told me about probation cases that she had been involved in that were held in public houses.

Lambeth County Court

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the proposed closure of Lambeth County Court.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Lambeth county court serves residents across Lambeth and Southwark. I am pleased to be joined here today by hon. Friends whose constituents will also be deeply impacted by the planned closure of that court and to have the opportunity to raise our concerns about the impact on our constituents, on the staff who work at the court, on the lawyers who represent people there and on a wide range of other public sector staff who regularly attend the court, including housing officers and social workers.

Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country, effectively making it a specialist court, and it is situated in an area with one of the highest concentrations of social housing in the country. In addition to housing possession claims, the other types of work undertaken at Lambeth county court are cases concerning children, domestic violence and money claims. The proposal on which the Government consulted was to close Lambeth county court and move all of its business to Wandsworth county court in Putney. That is almost five miles away as the crow flies, but it is a complicated journey on several buses for residents on low incomes who cannot afford the train or tube. East-west journeys in south London are invariably more difficult than journeys into and out of central London.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and thank the Chair for chairing? For my constituents in Rotherhithe, it will take a minimum of two hours on three different buses just to get to court. The four-hour journey that is potentially being imposed will deter people from attending court and will result in higher appeals.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I will make the point later in my speech that the impact of the court’s closure on travel time is, indeed, worse than the impact of court closures proposed in many rural areas of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I think the words I was looking for before were “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,” Mr Gray—I got that wrong earlier.

My hon. Friend is talking about the assessment that was made of Camberwell. In her discussions with the legal professionals in Southwark and Lambeth, did they also express concern that the assessment of Lambeth’s use was inaccurate? It was undertaken at a time when at least one judge was away and it did not take into account all the rooms that are used in preparation for court hearings.

[Helen Hayes]

Concerns have absolutely been raised that the figures used to underpin the consultation relating to usage levels at Lambeth county court were not, in fact, accurate at all.

On the move to Camberwell, it is not clear whether the administrative functions of Lambeth county court in relation to housing possession cases will now be based at Camberwell magistrates court, or whether they will move to Putney and only possession hearings will take place at Camberwell. If the administrative functions move to Putney, there is concern that some vulnerable residents facing eviction will still have to travel to Putney to initiate administrative processes that require attendance in person, such as applying for a stay of eviction. If the administrative functions move to Camberwell, it is imperative that Camberwell does not become overloaded. We know what overloaded courts look like: everyone I have met who has had any experience of the Central London county court since it moved to the royal courts of justice describes it as being like the Chancery Court in Dickens’ novel, “Bleak House”, such are the delays and inefficiencies there.

The detail is important here, and I ask the Minister to respond to the following points in his reply: how many judges will move to Camberwell? How many hearings will transfer to Camberwell? What physical space will be made available at Camberwell? Where will the judges at Camberwell be based when they are not sitting in hearings?

Finally, there is concern that even with housing possession hearings staying closer to the site of the current Lambeth county court, moving the remaining functions to Putney will mean that many vulnerable residents—victims of domestic violence, parents attending custody hearings, residents who are in financial difficulties—will have to travel a long distance on a complicated public transport route to access the justice that they deserve.

I come back to where I began. Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country. Those who deal with it on a regular basis report that it works well in respect of housing and the other work that takes place there. Although there may be theoretical short-term savings to be achieved from its closure, there are very great risks that, as a consequence, justice will become less efficient and less easy to access, particularly for vulnerable residents on low incomes. The consequence of that will only be additional costs to the public sector in the long term.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the concerns that I and my hon. Friends have raised. Fundamentally, I believe that this closure will have disastrous consequences for my constituents, and I urge him to reconsider it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

May I say what a pleasure it is, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate—we have met about the matter—and I take the opportunity to put on record that she is an extraordinarily diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament who has spoken up very effectively for her constituents in the short time that she has been an MP. I am pleased to see that we also have the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) here today, because both of them have written to me and we have corresponded on this issue.

It is absolutely clear from today’s debate that the hon. Lady cares deeply about our courts and the delivery of justice. I want to assure her that I do, too. Before I speak about Lambeth county court, I will mention some general points. The consultation that we have just concluded ran last year and had more than 2,100 responses, all of which were carefully reviewed and analysed. I care about reforming our courts—about moving from places that have changed little since Victorian times to a modern, responsive and flexible system fit for the 21st century.

[Neil Coyle]

I echo the Minister’s kind words about my colleagues. I am sure that many of those respondents contacted the Minister and the Department to demonstrate their commitment to justice and modernising justice, but how many of the 2,100 responses agreed that it was sensible to close the court?

[Mr Vara]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise number regarding the 2,100 responses that we received, but it is fair to say that a number of them objected to closures. As I said, we carefully looked at all the responses that were given. If he gives me some time, I will say that we did actually listen to many of the points that were made—if he bears with me, I will come to that.

Despite the best efforts of our staff and the judiciary, the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. It uses technology that is now decades old. We offer very few services online and rely on paper forms. We key in data and pass bundles of documents between agencies. When we need to take payment, we can often only accept cash or cheques. We convene physical hearings to discuss matters of process. We need to end the old-fashioned ways of working that create inefficiencies and which make it hard for the public to access justice.

That is why the Government have a significant reform programme in which there will be an investment of some £700 million over the next four years. That will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the courts and tribunals. New services and new, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system will require a modern infrastructure to support them. The reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier and more efficient.

To achieve those benefits, however, we must make difficult decisions, and deciding to close a court is undoubtedly one of the most difficult. I want to emphasise that we have listened to the responses to the consultation. We have retained four courts and in one further case, we have retained one of the jurisdictions along with the building following the responses that we received. In 22 courts, we have modified the proposal in some way to reduce the impact of the closure on court users—indeed, Lambeth is one of those courts, and I will refer to specific points on that shortly.

In the case of Lambeth county court, the court is poorly used; it is only used for around 40% of its available sitting time. The building is in need of considerable maintenance, including the replacement of air conditioning, lighting and aspects of the heating and hot water system. In many respects, it is simply not fit for purpose as a modern and flexible court building.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned in her speech, she and I had a meeting—I thought it was very productive—following which we were able to engage in conversation with my officials and she was able to liaise with the local council, Southwark council, and there was a very productive dialogue. Unfortunately, after Southwark council had carried out a feasibility study, it came to the conclusion that county court work could not be transferred to its premises, which we were open to considering. I am, however, pleased that following the representations that she and others made, and recognising the enormous number of housing possession cases that are at Lambeth county court, we have managed to shift the work two miles down the road to Camberwell Green magistrates court. I think that is not unreasonable, in that we have listened, and I would like to think that two miles is not a huge distance.

I understand that the closure of a court has a very real impact on the court’s users, staff and judiciary, but I want to make it clear that in England and Wales, the closure of 86 courts will only reduce the proportion of citizens who will be able to reach their nearest civil or family court within an hour by car by 1% and by public transport by 5%. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the population will never have to attend a court, and for those who do, it is likely to be a rare occurrence.

The issue of access to justice featured prominently in the hon. Lady’s speech. Being able to access courts and tribunals when required is, of course, essential, but effective access to justice is not defined simply by the proximity to a court or tribunal building. It should be defined by how easy it is for court users to access the service they need, however they choose to do that. We want to take advantage of the choice and flexibility that digital technology offers. We will move towards a system in which face-to-face hearings are required only for sensitive and complex cases. Online plea, claims and evidence systems with much wider adoption of video conferencing into court will reduce the need for people to travel to court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

On the data, I assure hon. Members that the decision was based on the correct information. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, with the best will in the world, consultation on 91 courts requires human beings to put a huge amount of data into documentation. I assure him that the decision was taken on the correct information.

On my use of the words “may” and “will”, the hon. Gentleman should look at our track record. During the consultation, I met the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Following our meeting, there was instant dialogue between my officials and Southwark council. While the consultation was still proceeding, the council came to the conclusion that it was unable to accommodate what we wanted.

It would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to give a specific time, date or month. All I can say is that when we are putting in place a £700 million-plus programme of court reform throughout England and Wales, he must take it on trust that we will do our damnedest to make sure everything fits in and is timely and orderly because, if it is not, there will be one massive chaotic justice system, which is the last thing I want.

[Neil Coyle]

I note the absence of a specific timeframe, which is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister will write to my hon. Friends about that. Where is the assessment of the new costs to the police and councils of providing space for the video conferencing that the Minister mentioned?

On journey times, can the Minister tell us what percentage of cases he expects members of the public will still have to attend? In my constituency, there is a growing number of controlled parking zones. Thousands of people are not allowed to own a car where they live so a massive number of people will still be expected to use public transport and, as I have said, a round trip from Rotherhithe in the rush hour will take around four hours.

[Mr Vara]

I am mindful that I have about two and a half minutes and I am keen for the hon. Lady to have a few minutes to sum up.

In response to the hon. Gentleman, 20 years ago it was unthinkable that people would be accessing banking services from the comfort of their kitchen table or their sitting room. They did not know they would be able to access the Inland Revenue and file their tax return from the comfort of their home. It is important to recognise that proximity to justice does not mean being in a physical building called a court. We already have online transactions taking place. We will do our best to ensure that the £700 million-plus programme works apace and that we deliver the service that we want for a 21st-century justice system that is fit for purpose.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I hope I have given her some comfort. I conclude by saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our court system and that is precisely what we seek to do.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), but I will give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) again later, if he still wants to intervene.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister says that it is important for people to have the confidence to report crime. In London we have seen a 21% increase in sexual offences and a 22% increase in violent crime, including knife crime, but in Southwark last year, worryingly, only 16% of reported crimes resulted in convictions. When will the Minister stop insulting the hard-working officers and constituents in Southwark, and ensure that we have the resources to tackle crime properly, keep people safe, and secure prosecutions?

[Mike Penning]

I have never insulted an officer, or anyone’s constituent, in my entire life, and I never will. I am proud to be Policing Minister, and glad to be in the House representing my constituents and the country as a whole, so I resent the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made. What would have happened in London if there had been a 10% cut? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that would not have happened, but it is exactly what was proposed by Labour Front Benchers.